Today's topic of discussion.

[hackthis_archive]

In today's Variety there's an article on Brokeback Mountain, one of many that have come out over the last few months and which will doubtlessly be followed by many more. I mention this because in reading it this comment caught my eye,


I don't believe they would have ever allowed an openly queer director to make this movie, nor do I believe that actors of this calibre would have signed on. In a long line of ironic outcomes, it took these guys [Jake Gyllenhaal & Heath Ledger] with impeccable heterosexual credentials to make this kind of breakthrough.
-Critic and author B. Ruby Rich

Do you lot agree with that?

Discuss.

Comments

[florahart]

I do agree, and also believe this is because folks like to delude themselves about what they know and don't know about sexuality, and related to this think it's relevant whether the actor(s) and crew and whoever all else are gay. I mean, it isn't as though there aren't gay actors that play straight, straight that play gay, and straight that play straight, all of that known or not, so it follows that PROBably at leas ta time or two a gay man has played a gay character without telling anyone, you know?

I may be getting off track. But I agree, there would have been Issues for the studio and the backers and the all sorts of other folks about releasing a "queer" film. It's not that there are no queer films (course), but that they play at art houses and generally don't get a lot of exposure.

Also, yes, as far as we know Gyllenhall and Ledger are 100% red-blooded good old hetero boys, but then, I dunno, I've not been present for every sex act of their lives, so that could be a cultivated misperception, for all I know. It's certainly been done before (Rock Hudson?).